Prove that the set {X: XA = AX} is a subspace of M 2,2

  • Thread starter Thread starter sschmiggles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set Subspace
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that the set W = {X: XA = AX} is a subspace of M2,2, where A is a 2 x 2 matrix. The original poster has made attempts to demonstrate non-emptiness and vector addition but is struggling with scalar multiplication.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster has shown that W is non-empty by identifying the identity matrix as an element and has verified vector addition. They are questioning how to prove that scalar multiplication holds for elements in W.

Discussion Status

Some participants have suggested that the proof of scalar multiplication is straightforward, indicating that the original poster has already established the necessary conditions. However, there is a lingering uncertainty from the original poster about the validity of their reasoning and whether there could be exceptions.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes that this is their first experience writing proofs, which may contribute to their confusion regarding the concepts being discussed.

sschmiggles
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A is a 2 x 2 matrix. Prove that the set W = {X: XA = AX} is a subspace of M2,2

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I have already proven non-emptiness and vector addition.

Non-emptiness:

Code:
W must be non-empty because the identity matrix I is an element of W.
IA = AI
A = A

Vector addition:

Code:
Let X, Y be elements of W such that XA = AX, YA = AY. Add the equations together.
(X+Y)A = A(X+Y)
XA+YA = AX+AY

Hence, X+Y is an element of W.

I have no idea what to do with scalar multiplication. This is my current attempt:

Code:
Let X be an element of W, and c be a scalar.
cXA = AcX
(cX)A = A(cX)

I also tried this:

Code:
Let X be an element of W, and c be a scalar.
XA = AX
c(XA) = c(AX)

I don't feel like either of these attempts proves anything.

I don't understand how to prove that cX is actually in W. This doesn't make any sense to me. How do I prove that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's too trivial.
You have X in W, thus XA=AX, thus cXA=A(cX) meaning cX in W.
Or in other word you've proved it already.
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
It's too trivial.
You have X in W, thus XA=AX, thus cXA=A(cX) meaning cX in W.
Or in other word you've proved it already.
But how do I know that there isn't a scalar that would change X in such a way that (cX)A ≠ A(cX)?

Edit: I guess I get what you're saying now, but it still confuses me how I can just say that they're equal with no real evidence.
 
They are equal cause you have XA=AX, and then you multiply this equation by c.
I said it's trivial.
 
Remember that your scalar is some number, real/complex or something else.
It's not a vector (in which case multiplication of a matrix with a vector will not yield you a matrix of the same size but a vector, and thus it wouldn't be a vector space.
 
Yeah, I understand it now. This is the first class I've had to write my own proofs in, so I'm still getting used to it. Thanks again for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K